Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. What we're doing on a Monday. What are we doing here on a Monday? We're normally out here on a Monday, right? Well, here we are because tomorrow the plan is to do a probably mega-length Radio Free Geneva. And I've already linked, in social media anyways, to the video that we are going to be reviewing very fully. in the big studio and so there's just a lot of stuff that we need to talk about before then and I'm not going to try to do a mixture type thing. Just want to be focused solely upon that. So join us tomorrow for that. And I've linked to the video we're going to be reviewing and already made some comments as to why it's important to do so, etc, etc. So I want to start off, I'm wearing my my skillet shirt, see this big skillet shirt on on Friday. Skillet was in town, and so my wife and I got to go over and basically just hang out with the band, have lunch in the bus, which kept turning off, which is very interesting. It was still warm, and somebody'd have to come in every once in a while, turn the thing back on. Their bus broke down a few weeks ago, and so they've got a rental bus at the moment. Anyway, but we just, we had, Really good Mexican food, too. They found a good place, not for being around here, to get some good Mexican food. Anyway, we just sat around and talked all afternoon and then they have duties. They have to do the meet and greet thing where they take pictures and stuff. And so Kelly and I just were sort of standing off the side watching all this. And we did get our own, gotta get rid of this thing. There it goes, oh. We did get our own picture in the meet and greet. Here's, here's what? What? Well, you know, we should have probably figured that out beforehand. I've got a half dozen or more things to show today. So Rich says he can't, Rich says he can't do this because of something. I have no earthly idea why. But there we go. Hopefully, that will fix it. I'm told the new MacBooks have HDMI ports again and just basically gone backwards five years. Whatever all the rest will be stuck with these 47,000 dongles that we had to buy over the past five years and they all cost $69.95 each Anyway, so yeah, we got to there's Kelly and I with with John and Corey and Jen and Seth from left to right During the meet and greet thing and then we went back before they did a Q&A thing, and I guess it was sort of like a green room type thing. And we were just having a lot of fun and talking about a lot of theology and church history, and we were taking this official skill of theologian thing fairly seriously, actually. telling all sorts of stories and and uh just getting to know each other all that much better it was a lot of fun and uh then there was a q a thing uh where um i actually have a had a picture somewhere here from the q a thing but anyways after that's over then uh my son and my daughter and my three granddaughters um showed up and we had already told cory that's John's wife, that Janie, our youngest, who will be six in November next month, had said that she's Corey's biggest fan. Now, I think she's actually Corey's shortest fan, when you actually think about it. But she meant it in a different category. was pretty excited to Get them together. So here is here is Corey and Jani I think Kelly I think summer called this Jani's best life now moment or something like that From Joel Osteen or something like that, but there's a Jani meeting Corey We're out by the buses out on out in the back lots someplace basically and that's Jani meeting Corey and I just I just have to say, not only was it an incredibly wonderful evening and Pastor Luke and his family got to come back with us and we're just all standing around and fascinatingly talking about serious and yet enjoyable stuff, there is a lot of A lot of theology going on, and just Jen and Corey listen to Summer, and so they're familiar with Sheologians and all the rest of that type of stuff, and so it's great to see them hook up and start talking to each other and things like that. But just the hospitality, just the... I mean, this is probably the biggest Christian rock band in the world, and they're just... salt of the earth, folks. Did you see the meme that came out last week where Babylon Bee had a picture of John and it says Christian Rocker comes out as still Christian? That's sort of the idea. And by the way, I'll try to remember, I will forget, but I will try to remember to link to it. I would highly recommend that you watch or listen to, one of the two, the current Cooper stuff. John does his own webcast and he had Joe Boot on. And I was telling Joe earlier today, I said, Joe, how do I get you as animated as John managed to get you animated? Because it was an excellent conversation. It's spot on. It's super important. He was talking about the mission of God. He's talking about his new book, Ruler of Kings, that both John and I have written endorsements for. And it's really, really worth your time to go look up Cooper stuff and to watch that video. It's always enjoyable to listen to John, but this was a great combination between Joe and John, and I'm very thankful to have been the one to hook the two of them up. I forget which direction that went. I mean, I know I introduced John to Mission of God, I'm forgetting whether it was Joe's folks who asked me to get John on their program or vice versa. I think that's the way it was. I don't know. I've lost track. But anyway. And so I was just blown away by all of that. I'm not going to go into details on the story. At one point I hopped in the bus and all the girls are in the bus. So Corey and Jen and Summer and Kelly and all my granddaughters and Luke's daughters are all just, they've found some cookies that someone had made for the band and they're just doing girl stuff in the bus. And this is before the show. Jen and Corey are going to have to go out there and get quite a workout in not too distant a time, but they're sharing their food with the girls and they're just doing their thing. Anyways, I won't go into details. Let's just say at some point during the evening, Kory really had to, she really mothered Jenny. Let's just put it that way. She did something for Jenny that Basically required me to say that she is now adopted into our family. She is now a part of the white Jaeger clan and she has Adopted auntie as her title. So it's auntie Cory. We know that we all that means we also have to dot John He's sort of package deal and we're good with that. It's it's okay but but it was it was so wonderful to see folks who are just what they are. They're real and it's awful tough to stay real on the road. Man, that type of life. But a lot of you have been listening to John and listening to his presentations and he's standing firm and I don't think for a second that I'm overstepping my bounds to say John would say he's there because Corey's been there with him and the rest of the band as well. You don't stay in their arena for five years, let alone as long as they've started in 96, as I recall, for as long as they've been going without the proper internal dynamics and proper grounding and stuff like that. So we had a great time and I just thought that... I just thought that picture, that is going to be framed, printed and framed, and Janie's going to appreciate that one for a very, very, very long time, I think, of her and Corey meeting. So anyways, that was great. That was a lot of fun. And so that was on Friday, and they're still on tour, and they go to bed, like at midnight, in a bus. And then they wake up in another state the next morning, you know, and that's I couldn't do it. That would that would be that would be that'd be that'd be rough. No, no toys about it. But there you go. I'm not sure how this even came up. I must have clicked something. But anyhow, I've got a bunch of stuff here. Let me get this. Let me get this one done, because stuff on Twitter. Uh, it just like wants to disappear and runs away. So hopefully, um, my sound will work here, uh, appropriately. Uh, how do I get rid of that? There we go. All right. I'm not sure that it will, but I'm going to look here real quick. Uh, nope. I got to go there. There. Now I think my sound will work. This is, um, Not in any particular order here. Like I said, I just need to get this one out of the way. This is a representative of, I think, the Commerce Department in the current regime talking about the supply chain issue, which we are not only all experiencing, but will experience to much greater depth in the not too distant future. I am very concerned about the challenges this is going to present. you know, not only here in the United States, but if it's hard to get stuff here, can you imagine how hard it is? There are many, many, many other nations down line from us or dependent upon us. And the impact there is not just inconvenience or a lack of Christmas presents. It's food, it's survival. And we are now run by global elites that want a whole lot fewer people on the planet anyways, so they don't mind one way or the other. But here is one of these communists now in control of the United States. It's just a simple fact. That's what they are. Talking about the transition in our economy. What's the transition in our economy? Well, we're transitioning to socialism. That's what we're doing. We're transitioning. And you just got to get people used to having much less because socialism cannot provide what capitalism can. It just can't. And it won't. That's the plan. The good stuff, I can assure you Nancy Pelosi is in zero, zero danger of not having all the specialty ice cream that she wants for Christmas. She will have it all. And if your neighbor has to go hungry for the elites to have it, that's how this system works. That's the system we've put in place. Or put itself in place, maybe. Anyway. But I want you to listen to what this guy says, and then recognize the utter disconnection of the regime from reality and truth. That's important. Today, we face an economy that's in transition. And as part of that transition, we are seeing high prices for some of the things that people have to buy. But the reality is that the only way we're going to get to a place where we work through this transition is if everyone in America and everyone around the world gets vaccinated. That's why the president continues to be focused on the idea that we get everyone who can vaccinated in this country. There is not the slightest logical connection between vaccination and the breakdown of supply chain. What's happening is the rules and regulations. Only certain kind of trucks now allowed in these places and a lot of drivers can't afford those types of trucks and etc, etc, etc. It's rules and regulations. It's coming from the top down. All those container ships could be processed. if you'd allow it to happen, but the whole point is that these people are now in charge and they'll do whatever they darn well please, but there's, did you catch that? We've got to get everyone in the world vaccinated so that you can get supplies into stores. There is not, these people, this is why these people, This kind of irrationality requires censorship, not debate, because you can't debate this. This is insanity. It's foolishness. It's easily refuted in a situation where cross-examination can take place, but that's why they'll never expose themselves to it. You just censor anyone who would dare to question you. It is absolutely astonishing to see this kind of irrationality and said with a straight face. I mean, you've got to look around to find folks that have the skill to be able to say that kind of thing with a straight face, knowing that it's absolute absurdity. I see you've raised a microphone. Okay, I just put it up there. Have you forgotten how to turn the microphone on? Yeah, I've got to remember. You're staring at the thing going, wow, there's a lot of buttons down there. It doesn't work the same way when you're out in Timbuktu in the RV. That's true. I was just going to mention that report that I put up on Facebook about the trucks in California and the limitations and the regulations and of course you've got to be Now a union guy on the, you know, Facebook corrected me, none of that's true. Oh, oh, yes, yes, yes. The Facebook fact checkers have said that that's not the reason. You know, I think it was last year when, actually a year and a half ago, I mentioned something called JIT. You remember this? Probably not. I don't know how long we've got to go on this one. If you look at how the supply chain works, and having in my previous life worked in a food service warehouse, JIT stands for just-in-time inventory. And the fact of the matter is the vast majority of this country for decades has been running in a JIT model. And I saw an economist just the other day talking about the fact that all this is now stacking up because we don't have anywhere to put this stuff because we were designed on the smallest size warehouses that we could possibly have in order to make the process efficient. And so all of this supply chain has to work in a particular order or else the whole just-in-time, when it goes out, something comes in and fills the slot, just-in-time. When that whole thing backs up and falls apart, our entire inventory control processes start falling apart. And that's what we're starting to see now. And as I told you before in the program, a fellow that's doing a job for me right now, his supplier is saying they have to get the raw materials in cargo containers. And they've been paying $6,000 to $8,000 per shipment of a cargo container to come in. And they're telling them, we're going to have to pass this cost on to you because we're being told that those cargo containers are going to start increasing price up to $32,000 a delivery. What do you do with that? What do you do with that? It's real. Yeah, it's going to have a lot of very, very, very negative impacts all across the economy. No two ways about it. Early this morning, I was up very early this morning, and then shortly after I went back to bed, news broke about General Colin Powell's death. If we still lived in a world where there were meaningful news outlets, journalists, and the like, the theme right now would be, why are we vaccinating for last year's virus? The vaccines work fine for the initial virus, but they're so narrow, and were designed to be so narrow, that they're actually part of what's creating the later variants. Their efficacy is disappearing very, very quickly, and they are basically not relevant to the Delta virus. People kept saying when they first came out, of course, 100% efficacy, 98% efficacy, this is what it's going to do. And now it's taken time. Facebook and everything else, and I already used the wrong terms. I've got to talk about Joe's Cookies. Because we now live in a day where you cannot discuss these things openly. But slowly, the data is coming out that demonstrates that the majority of people who are being hospitalized and sick today have eaten all of Joe's Cookies. They've received the full box of Joe's Cookies. And that information would come out from Israel. As soon as you'd share it, you'd get shut down. It would be censored, whatever. but it's just happening around the world so much. I watched a video, a stunning video from Johns Hopkins, from Johns Hopkins that showed COVID death rates. And then there was a little syringe where the vaccine mandates start in a country. And this was probably about 40 different countries around the world. And as soon as that vaccine mandate started, straight up go the deaths. straight up go the deaths. I have it. And it's just country after country after country from Johns Hopkins. And I was gonna say you can't suppress that information forever, but maybe you can. I certainly, the people that I'm seeing, man, I see people on social media right now, on the other side, that honestly, if someone suggested that anyone who refuses to eat Joe's cookies should simply summarily be shot in the head, these people would go, yes, and I will do it. The depth of the evil on that side is, I guess, I would say astonishing, but I guess when you look back at history, You know, a lot of those people behind the Iron Curtain liked doing what they did. They liked being Stasi prison guards and stuff like that. And so I guess it shouldn't be overly shocking. But if there was still a media, the fact that General Powell had eaten all of Joe's cookies, in the exact way he was told to eat Joe's cookies. We wouldn't be having discussions of breakthroughs. What? Oh, guess we had a power spike someplace. All right. Yep. I'm hearing stuff resetting and stuff like that. Yay. We would be, instead of hearing about breakthroughs, we would be hearing about failures. Because that's what a breakthrough is. It's a failure. And I'm trying to figure out how it is that we have forgotten what the conversation was like only 10 months ago. 10 months ago, when the cookies were first introduced. and the cookies start being used. Everybody's going, so now I can't get COVID now, right? And I'm sorry, I can't get the chicken pox now. And I can't pass chicken pox on to others once I've eaten the cookies. and you know this this means we remember when uncle joe was saying hey if we get enough people to eat the cookies by july 4th we can have a great celebration and la la la la and now the honest person goes okay there's more negative reports of bad reactions to this stuff than anything that has ever been recorded by medical history in the United States. It doesn't keep you, eating the cookies doesn't keep you from getting chicken pox. It doesn't keep you from passing chicken pox on. and the numbers are climbing and climbing that demonstrate that the cookies are pretty much irrelevant now. But is that changing anything? No, we've got the Commerce Department saying that the solution to empty store shelves is to make sure to cram this stuff, cram these cookies into everybody's mouth around the world, and that will solve everything. I don't believe it. No rational person can believe it. The panicked can believe it, but if you're panicked, you've lost your rationality anyways. Fear doesn't produce rationality. So that's what the story would be. Here is an elderly black man and the cookies failed him. That would be the story, but it won't be the story. Right along the same stuff. This one's great. Did you see what happened in Canada? Well, it's either Canada, Australia, the premier in Melbourne. That guy, if he just grew a mustache, it would be real obvious who he's the reincarnation of. This guy's got delusions of deity. I mean, I have zero respect for this man. Wow. Astonishing. He is a tyrant with a capital T and he seems to be like, I'm perfectly fine with that. But see what they were saying yesterday? That they're now telling you how many visitors you can have in your home in a certain period of time. So I mean your homes are This is the most effective way. I guess they can come up with to imprison people I Mean it's just yeah, it's constant house arrest. It's like well, so that's Australia but up in Canada where Samuel say Can't get out of Canada to go marry his fiancee Because you can no longer take any public transportation Unless, again, you eat the cookies. You know, the cookies for the disease that has an average death rate between 78 and 80? That disease? Yeah. A few days ago, anti-mask activists ordered by Calgary judge to preach science too. So here you have pastors who have been convicted of contempt of court and court of Queens bench justice, Adam Germain, your honor, Germain, I would like to point out to you, sir, that while you're a judge in this life, you will be the judged in the next life, and you will be judged for what you tell people to do and how you use your authority. So, he says they're on the wrong side of science, they're also on the wrong side of common sense, and as part of their probation conditions, Germain ruled that if the three pandemic-denying anti-mask leaders continue to preach their followers, they must also present the perspective of medical experts. Only certain medical experts, of course. Not the thousands and thousands of medical experts that agree with them. That doesn't matter. They have to, there's only certain medical experts that you have to, the medical experts that are getting paid all the money. They're the medical experts that you need to... Jermaine, no, the sentences come as the threat of COVID-19 has never been greater in Alberta. Scott and Pawlowski's have contributed this anonymous health situation, said Jermaine, and encouraged others to doubt the legitimacy of the pandemic. You encourage people to doubt, big brother, How dare you? And so, what they're supposed to do... Let me see here, because there was a... Yeah, here we go. So, one of them has to pay a $23,000 fine and serve 18 months probation. Another one, $10,000 fine, 12 months probation. They have to obey all these orders. And if the three men continue to preach to their followers, they must also place the other side of the argument on the record, the judge said. Germain suggested wording like, I'm aware of the views I'm expressing to you may not be held by medical experts. The majority of medical experts favor social distancing and vaccine programs. So you've got to, Big Brother is saying, you need to tell people what Big Brother believes. Whether it's a lie or not, doesn't matter. We can force you to actually include these in your sermons. Oh, it's very Soviet. Oh yeah. It's as Soviet as Soviet can get. No two ways about it. Absolutely amazing. Well, at the same time, I think the number, last number I saw was 3,800. Oh, 3,100. That's one o'clock Friday afternoon, so this is probably over with that. Over 3,000 doctors and scientists signed declaration accusing COVID policy makers of crimes against humanity, but they don't exist. No. You solve container problems by vaccinating people. This is the world we live in. It's insane. And it's meant to be insane. It's purposefully insane. Because once you cause everybody to start repeating the lie, you emasculate them. Dalrymple was right. I'm not going to repeat it, but Dalrymple's quote was spot on. Absolutely spot on. That's just how it works. Okay, then I have this one. Let me see if I can. So, here's, remember when the ACLU was actually, pretended to be about civil liberties and stuff like that? The ACLU of Virginia on October 14th tweeted this out, breaking, you got that one? Rich is a little rusty. He used to be pretty fast at this, but part of it's age and part of it is things don't work the same down here as when I'm on the road. So I think he'd rather I was on the road. He's sitting there going, well, he's not wrong about that. He couldn't, he couldn't, he could not deny it. Not honestly. That's right. Get that man back on the road. All right. Breaking three teachers in Loudoun County. That seems to be a flashpoint. I'm hearing a lot about Loudoun County, Virginia. Because that's sort of where Washington hits the real world. And, you know, so Loudoun County are going to court simply because they don't want to use trans and non-binary students' pronouns. We and partners filed an amicus brief to tell the court refusing U.S. students' pronouns because of who they are is discrimination. And there's some really, really bad scan of their amicus brief. The point being, the ACLU is now going to court to try to force you to lie. Because that's what it is. Forcing you to memorize people's personally chosen pronouns is absurd. It's a lie. There is no such thing as transitioning. It's physically impossible. It's delusional and it destroys people's lives. Everybody knows the suicide rate is much higher for those individuals. They have problems and making everyone pretend that they don't have a problem is not how you solve a problem. But the ACLU, we are for forcing you to speak as we tell you to speak, even if it's a lie. That's That's the ACLU. That's the ACLU. That's where they are. That's where our world is. It is astonishing. Might as well. This hit this morning, Tony Byrne... Now, Tony Byrne Years ago anyways, I don't know where he is now, but years ago was a Emeraldian. And he's always been David Allen's source person. When David Allen was assigned the task long ago, 2008 now I think, of heading up some of the anti-Calvinism in the SBC. He was completely dependent. He didn't know what he was doing. He was completely dependent on Tony Byrne. And so Tony Byrne put this tweet out today, I think. And... Dead air, dead air, it's real quiet. And once it gets real quiet, then yeah. Coming next year, probably one, probably one of the most important books written from a non-Calvinist perspective. And notice at 624 pages, it seems like this group thinks that the number of pages is directly relevant to the cogency of the biblical argumentation. A lot of, well, this whole group does it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 624 pages, and it says, I helped to edit most, if not all, of the chapters. Well, we knew that, Tony. We've known that you've been behind this really bad theology for a long time. But for some reason, Peter Lumpkins is tagged on this. So Dr. David Allen, but it's not Pierre Lumskin, it's David Allen and Steve Lemke. Calvinism, a biblical and theological critique. 624 pages. Due out a year from now. To which I responded, wow, I didn't really need any more Radio Free Geneva material, but the fact of the matter is, the last I checked, When Dr. Allen attempted to do a full article presentation on Romans 8, we did not have too much difficulty thoroughly refuting it. We have a standing challenge to Dr. Allen, an invitation. I have said, I will walk into his classroom on the campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with nothing but a Greek New Testament, and I will debate him on these issues. But that's not going to happen. We all know that's not going to happen. And Dr. Lemke, last I checked, last I checked, for some reason I'm thinking New Orleans. And that's certainly on my... These days I'm thinking East-West routes. So, okay, you got the Dallas part, okay, I know that part. And then you've got the I-10 part right down along the coast, you know, that goes right through New Orleans. And so I'm just thinking, what are you looking at? New Orleans, yeah, that's what I thought. Dr. Lemke, I'm going to be going through New Orleans. In fact, just today I was contacting someone. I had such a good time with my Cajun friends down there, and they were so kind to me that I needed to get back down there. And they were saying, hey, down here, what we'd like to see would be some more debates on Roman Catholicism. And I'm like, I'm up for it. Let's do it. And so we're looking, I'm basically saying, I'm going to Florida in January, but I got to get to Florida. And I'm thinking this Florida trip's probably going to break the record as the longest I've been out, the way it's looking. Because that's a long ways, first of all. We learned on this last trip that doing big, long days back to back to back is not real good. And so that could be a long one. That could be a real long one. I may have to have Kelly fly in somewhere halfway through just to say, hi, remember me? That type of thing. Anyway, but yeah, Calvinism, a biblical and theological critique. I can't wait to, something tells me what we saw about Romans 8, and we demonstrated over and over again so many of the citations were not supportive of the use. There was a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the sources being used. There was a lot of real problems with the scholarship that was represented by David Allen's article. And we just walked through it right here on the program. Spent hours just going through it. Well, let's look at what that source actually says. Oh, that's not what it says. And oh, that's a misrepresentation. And it was very, very, very badly, poorly written. I have a feeling that that same article, probably without almost any editing whatsoever, will probably be in this book. But I can't wait to see Ephesians 1. I can't wait to see Romans 9. I can predict every one of them. I can't wait to see John 6. But I can predict what the responses will be in each one of those. This group is not going to come up with anything new at all. But yeah, there you go, and hey, 624 pages. That automatically means that it's right, because it's 624 pages long. That's what does it. Then I was sent this, and this is really interesting. Day of Special Studies at Metropolitan Tabernacles. This is Spurgeon's Church. in London, Saturday, the 27th of November, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., admission free, The War Against an Authentic Biblical Text. And if you recognize the picture, that, of course, is Dr. Jeffrey Riddle, who I debated last year, only debate we did in 2020, our first online debate. And that's mentioned in here. So let's look at what it says. Since rearing its head in the 19th century, the field of biblical criticism has waged war against the text of scripture, penetrating and conquering most seminaries worldwide. Gotta stop right there. That demonstrates such a complete disconnection with history that it takes your breath away. It takes your breath away. The reality is, that minimally, minimally you have to at least go back to origin and you can go before him, but there has been discussion on the part of Christians regarding the existence of textual… Well, Justin, Justin and Trifo. So, you're talking middle of second century. You are having discussions about Hey, there's my jacket. I was looking for that jacket yesterday. I was going, man, I hope I didn't lose that thing. I was trying to think, did I leave it in the RV? Because I got that jacket in Wittenberg. Nice to see you. I'm excited. I'm just really happy to see that. I was going, I really wonder where it went. Anyways, Rich was getting ready to leave with that. I think he was just gonna turn the lights off and leave and not worry about it anymore. Anyway, you look over and go, oh, you just found something. Hey, look, as we get older, we're both going to be doing that. You're going to be all of a sudden, I'm going to look out there, you're not going to be there because you saw something, you realized, there it is, and you wandered off and then forgot what you were doing. That's just how age works. Ah, what were we saying? Yes, middle of the second century, you have biblical criticism. So since rearing its head in the 19th century, what? What was Erasmus doing? What was Stephanus doing? What was Beza doing? I don't know. But if the very first sentence is that disconnected from any kind of reality, it's sad. Powerful arguments in defense of the Reformation text have been largely ignored. That's because there is no single Reformation text. while the 20th century era of new translations is explored with delight every variant reading that might be found." Delight? You mean we take seriously all of the manuscripts and all the data just like Erasmus at least pretended to? Or as Stephanus would like to have done if he had had more materials and Beza did? Oh, okay. Today, relatively few believers, even pastors, know much about the authenticity of the underlying text of the Bible. Advertising wizards of the new translations always proclaim a new version to be meticulously translated from the original Hebrew and Greek, but they do not tell the buyer about the variant renderings that have been adopted. What's a variant rendering? I know what a variation is, and I know how you render things, whether formally or dynamically. What's a variant rendering? A mongrel hash up of variants produced by unbelieving liberal theologians. Excuse me. Theologians don't produce variants. Manuscripts produce variants. Scribes produce variants. Theologians don't produce variants. I don't know who wrote this, but whoever wrote it has no earthly idea what they're talking about. And that really bothers me. I mean, this is the Met Tap. I've always known that they had that King James preference stance, but this isn't a preference stance any longer. This is diving headfirst into simple error. But they do not tell the buyer about the variant renderings that have been adopted. A mongrel hash of variants produced by unbelieving liberal theologians who hold the inspiration and value of Scripture in contempt is sold to the unsuspecting believer." That's just silly rhetoric. It's unworthy of Christian men. Christian men should not write that kind of hash to use the term being used. down below the center part here. The last two of these topics were featured in a recent online debate between Dr. Riddle and Dr. James White, who sought to defend the modern critical text viewed by over 30,000. I haven't looked at the views, but that's... In that debate, the weightiest and most convincing arguments clearly vindicated the traditional text. So I'd like to, I would love to know who wrote this because I'd like to hear you explain what Dr. Riddle could not explain and cannot explain. And it's real simple. Why does Dr. Riddle or any defender of the TR use one set of standards for Ephesians 3.9, the defense of a singular reading in a singular manuscript from over a thousand years after the time it was written. And then when defending Mark 16, 9 through 20, uses a completely different and contradictory set of standards. If you use two different sets of standards, you are contradicting yourself and you're not being truthful. Period. End of discussion. End of discussion. There is nothing more to be said at that point. He had to use different standards. That was clearly demonstrated over and over and over again. These two cases to be presented by Dr. Riddle provide powerful examples of the tragedy of passages being altered or omitted at the whim of textual critics, which again is misrepresentation. Not the whim of textual critics. We actually have standards. We actually have to make arguments. We have to be consistent. There is no consistency in the TR-only position. There can't be, because you already have your text. You have to do with the evidence whatever you need to do with the evidence. The only way to actually defend TR-onlyism is to stop talking about the manuscripts, because the manuscripts do not support you. As soon as you start talking about manuscripts, you have to come up with a means of textual criticism, and then you're done, because you can't come up with a consistent means of textual criticism that would ever produce the text of the TR. And Ephesians 3.9 proves it. So, and here's the problem, as soon as someone says, you're right, you're right, like Dean Burgan, who did not accept the validity of the Kamiohaneum, Dean Bergan would never, ever, ever have defended Ephesians 3.9. So if you go that route, and a lot of you love to use his name, you just don't love to use his methodology. If you go that route, here's the problem. As soon as you admit the TR has to be edited, then you have to come up with a consistent system of doing the editing. And now, you're in our world. And so the only way, the only way that you can defend this is to say, we don't care what the manuscripts say. God re-inspired the Bible in the 16th century. And that's what Ruckman did with the King James, is it was a process of purification going through the various versions of the King James until you get the final perfect version. And so, why not borrow that? And so you got Erasmus, and then Stephanus, and then Beza, and then finally somehow, by the early part of the fourth decade of the 17th century, the final version was produced by a process of purification. That's your only option. You cannot keep pretending that you care anything about manuscripts because Dr. Riddle doesn't. That became very, very clear because it would not matter what the patristic evidence was, manuscript evidence was, version evidence was for Ephesians 3.9 or Mark 16.9-20 or John 7.52. It doesn't matter. It's in the TR, therefore that's it. Bing! So gentlemen, be honest and just go to the base and say, you know what? We gotta stop talking about manuscripts because they just don't matter. Because that's your position. It's indefensible historically, but that's your position. Nobody who worked on it believed that, but that's what you've come up with. You have a, this is a idiosyncratic position that you've adopted. Just admit it. So, what Dr. Riddle is going to be talking about over there in London, a defense of the traditional text of scripture, a defense of the authenticity of the traditional ending of Mark, that'd be the notes from our discussion, and a defense of the authenticity of the woman taking adultery. So, the two long variants. And since the manuscript evidence is completely different for the two of them, anybody sitting there will discover that it'll be a different standard. It has to be. Has to be. So that's in the Met tab. There you go. There you go. All right. One last thing for the program today. And I'm glad you've been typing all this stuff up, Rich, because we've covered a lot of stuff, a wide variety of things. I received an email from a friend of mine and asked me about a textual variant and asked if I had done any study on it. And I'll be honest with you, this is not one that I had spent any particular time on at all. And Oh, seeing her looking at going, what is going on? Then I realized I had looked at this last at home on my other computer and that's why it's not, I thought it'd be all set up and ready to go. This is a textual variant, since we're talking about textual variants, that no liberal theologian invented. It's just... The funny thing about this one is it goes all the way back to P75. P75 is by far one of our best early Gospels manuscripts, and I would date it around 175. There were no liberal theologians 175 to come up with this, so not sure, you know, what that's supposed to mean, but anyway. In John chapter 9, we have the story of the blind man's healing. And, of course, that becomes the foundation for the assertion that the Jewish leaders themselves are the ones who were blind. And it's a great chapter, and it functions as a transition between 8 and 10, and it's one of my favorite passages to preach. So it is a little interesting that while I'm sure I noted the textual variant, I just hadn't really spent much time looking very closely at it. And the textual variance is all of verse 38 and the first few words of verse 39. And I just don't see a way of blowing this up. Well, it is full screen, and I just don't don't see a way of making it big enough. Maybe if I. Maybe if I try this. Yeah, I guess that's what I'll have to do. Let's do this. Yeah, and then this down here is really tough if they would just I don't know why it does that. but all right that's best I can do yeah so the variant is and he said I believe Lord and he worshipped him and Jesus said and then there's the break so you see Let's go full screen on it because no one can read that. That's got to go all the way up. There we go. So here's the variant. When you see the square right there in the magnifying glass, that is the indication of a deletion of the following words down to this symbol right there. And he said, and if that's original, my understanding is that's the only place that it's used in John, so it's not normal Yohanian language. I believe, Lord, and he worshipped him, and Jesus said, for judgment I have come into this world. And he goes on from there. You can see the variant noted right here. There it is. And what's fascinating is you do have a P66 contains it, but in a different word order. And notice all these others that have different word orders as well. That's the corrector even of P66. And then D, we know enough not to trust D. But the real issue is the deletion. P75, like I said, that is one of our earliest and most reliable gospel manuscripts. This is the one that, again, just mentioned to you in passing, is a copy from an earlier manuscript that is also progenitor of Codex Vaticanus. So Codex Vaticanus is not a copy of P75, but they are related. And since P75 is from about 175, and Vaticanus is from about 325 to 350, when they agree on something, you're talking about something that goes probably back earlier in 150 to 125. So you're talking about the earliest, some of the earliest evidence that we can have manuscript-wise. What's interesting is Sinaiticus did not originally have it. That's what the asterisk is for. It was added later. And then W, now this is really interesting because Washingtonianus is primarily associated with the earliest form of the Byzantine text types. So W and Sinaiticus and P75 are rarely, rarely together on a reading. But then notice you've also got versionals, so Sahidic and others that do not contain this particular section, verse 38 and 39. And so, this is a tough one. This is one that I'm really going to be interested in, in regards to CBGM databases. And what do I mean by that? Well, again, We've talked about CBGM, we've talked about the coherence-based genealogical method, we talked about the fact that MARC came out just recently, and it hasn't made a big splash because it hasn't really changed a whole lot. But it is the methodology where we've done these massive number of collations, fed them all into massive computer databases, so that we can see the relationship of manuscripts one to another on a level that the human mind wouldn't be able to see. I can remember, like looking at that, what we just had up, I remember that when we talk about the text in Luke, about sweating blood that W, no, the one about Father forgive them if they know what they'll do, sorry. Father forgive them if they know what they'll do. W joins with a number of quote-unquote Alexandria manuscripts. But that's just one place. The computer can remember every reading of W, and every reading of Olif, and every reading of Attacanus, and every reading of P75, and P45, and so on and so forth. And hence, see relationships and patterns that we just, our minds can't keep that any data points straight. And so I'm going to be really interested, John's being worked on in Birmingham rather than in Munster. And obviously I hope it comes out sooner rather than later. But I think when John comes out, people will finally start paying some attention to CBGM. because it's going to have an impact. And of course, I'm also really, really, really hoping that since John's being done in Birmingham and not at Munster, they will still be highly consistent with the application of the same standards that are used at Munster, or that's going to really, I think, damage the project. I was talking with a scholar about that this week on that subject. Anyway, my interest will be, do the manuscripts that contain the reading, are they more coherent with one another than the manuscripts that do not contain the reading? That was the issue of Jude 5. I want to be able to actually see. And the nice thing is once they release this stuff, they release those databases and you have access to them online and you can check all this stuff out. You don't have to sit there and go, oh, well, the scholars say this. So you can check it out yourself. That's a very positive thing. Because this is a, you know, the vast majority of manuscripts contain the reading. But these very, very early manuscripts and then very, very early versions do not. And so the first thought across my mind was I'm looking at it and I'm going, okay, Is there a reason that it could have been accidentally deleted? I don't see anything. There's no Homo Etaiuton. Anything like that, similar endings, similar beginnings. If it was just in the Greek manuscript tradition, maybe you could say, well, that's about how long a line might have been. So someone skipped a line, possibly. But the problem is, you have such a wide dispersion of manuscripts. W, like I said, has very different source materials than Sinaiticus or P75. And you've got the early translations. That means they had manuscripts that did not have it either. One of the theories that has been put forward is that In the early church, there was a concern that there was no confession of faith on the part of the blind man. And that this was provided. Maybe for liturgical purposes, for baptism purposes, or maybe it was a sermon that someone filled in the gaps. I don't know. But it is a very challenging variant on that level. And what's interesting is the NET, my understanding is the NET actually expressed concerns about it in a note. And I didn't bring the NET up to read the note. Let me see just real quick here if I've got, oh, what are you doing here? NE texts. Text NET Bible. 938, Lord, I believe. Okay, there it is. Some early and significant witnesses lack the words, he said, Lord, I believe, and he worshipped him, Jesus said. This is weighty evidence of the omission of these words. It is difficult to overstate the value of P75 here, since it is the only currently available papyrus manuscript extant for the text of John 9, 38-39. Further, Sinaiticus is a significant early Alexandrian witness for the omission. The virginal testimony in Codex W also gives strong support to the omission. Nearly all other manuscripts, however, include these words. The omission may have been occasioned by parablepsis, though it is difficult to account for such an error across such a wide variety of witnesses. On the other hand, longer reading appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns, so R.E. Brown, that's what I was mentioning there, If these words are authentic here, this would be the only place of John's gospel where Jesus is the explicit object of proscuneo. Even if these words are not authentic, such an omission would nevertheless hardly diminish John's high Christology, nor the implicit worship of him by Thomas. Nevertheless, the decision is difficult and the included words may reflect a very early tradition about the blind man's response to Jesus. But they left it in. And Philip Comfort sort of laments that, actually. And having mentioned the NET's commentary, says... Well, this is interesting. I do want to notice this. Without this portion, the text in 935-39 reads as follows. This is Comfort. Jesus heard that they threw him out. He found him and said, Do you believe in the Son of Man? The man replied, And who is he, sir, that I might believe in him? Jesus answered, You have seen him, and he is the one speaking to you. I came into the world to bring judgment, so that those who don't see could see, and that those who see would become blind. See how that flows really nicely? There's no interruption there. The text out 93839A presents a continuous state from Jesus' lips. However, it does not show how the blind man responded to Jesus' question. Of course, this is disappointing for the reader and could very likely be the prime factor that motivated scribes or redactors to insert the edition, thereby fill the gap. The reader wants to know if the blind man became a believer. Indeed, he did, but this is not readily apparent in the shorter text. Yet in saying that those who don't see could see, Jesus is implying the blind man had come to see that Jesus was the Messiah. And so he talks about the NET. He says, the NET translators were inclined to do so, that is, delete it, but they decide to keep this verse in the text. Its omission is noted in the NLT and the TNIV. He says, having argued for the shorter reading, it is disappointing to observe that not one English version has adopted it. So the tendency of English versions is to resist change. People like say, ah, they just want to change it. No, they don't. I don't. You really have to push hard. There has to be super strong evidence. And there is super strong evidence here, but what's the best thing to do? Provide the information. Provide the information. Explain it. And I think Comfort did a good job in explaining it. The NET footnote does a good job in explaining it as well. And there you go. So everybody always asks, okay, so if you're preaching through this section, what would you do? Well, I'd spend a couple of minutes to make know the fact that a wide variety of early witnesses do not contain this particular passage, and I'd want to read it to them. without that in it as a strong possibility of the flow that John originally presented. But then say, but the vast majority of manuscripts do contain this, and these are some of the reasons why it might have been added, and we can't really come up with any reason why it would have been deleted. So there you go. There you go. And for all of you sitting out there, you shouldn't talk about such things! Truthfulness is a Christian characteristic. It's a Christian character. You don't hide stuff. You don't hide stuff. You talk about it openly. That's what you need to do. All right, there we go. I think that was, I think I mainly cleared my board. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wherein we will seek to provide a very thorough, full response that will once again allow us to make sure everyone understands what the real issues at the time of the Reformation were. You may want to go back and look at the comments that I made in response to Leighton Flowers. wherein I made the accusation that Dr. Flowers' position on the nature of the human will, the nature of sin and depravity, and the nature of grace, where I made the accusation that Dr. Flowers' positions on those subjects stand in harmony with Erasmus against Luther. So, stand on Rome's side against the Reformed. That was the issue, and you may also want to review what I said about Titus chapter 2, because I provide an exegesis of Titus chapter 2, because the verse had been cited in defense of Leighton Flower's position. Then I've linked to His whole video, which was less than an hour long, shocking, less than an hour long, wherein he covers a whole bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with the actual topic, which is not unusual, but also evidently hoped that no one would notice that he provided not a scintilla of exegesis of Titus 2, not a word Not a dot, not a tittle, nothing. We'll talk about all that because it does allow us to talk about the Reformation and what's coming up in just a matter of weeks about Reformation Sunday, which is actually a Sunday. October 31st is a Sunday this year. And so always important to remember what the issues were and to not be distracted. from those who would like to try to confuse us as to what the issues were. We will also be talking about Philip Melancthon. That's an N. N. Who was consistently pronounced as Melanctham. I don't even get that part. Anyway, all right, we'll see you tomorrow, maybe. Like I said, I forgot to be consistent with Joe's Cookies, so who knows? But hopefully we'll see you tomorrow. God bless.